There’s a chance that
potentially-contaminated food is still sitting on store shelves, and maybe in
your pantry (Source: Gene.Arboit at Wikimedia Commons)
Hundreds of products with peanuts or peanut-butter have been yanked from
store shelves. That’s because of an outbreak of salmonella poisoning. Kyle
Norris has the latest on the outbreak:
Transcript
Hundreds of products with peanuts or peanut-butter have been yanked from
store shelves. That’s because of an outbreak of salmonella poisoning. Kyle
Norris has the latest on the outbreak:
We know the products include cookies, crackers, snack bars, cakes, candies,
ice cream—even pet foods are affected. And there’s a chance that
potentially-contaminated food is still sitting on store shelves. And maybe in
your pantry.
Matthew Boulton is an associate professor of epidemiology. He’s at the
University of Michigan School of Public Health. He says the testing of the
Georgia facility that made these peanut-butter products shows there are
flaws in the food safety system.
“I think one of the big problems is this divide we have between the folks who do the
regulation and the folks responsible for human health. Sometimes you don’t have good
communication between those two groups and it’s really critical if you’re going to get a
handle on insuring a safe food supply.”
Boulton says this peanut-butter scare could go on for a few weeks. Or a few
months.
BPA is not only found in plastic bottles, it is also found in the lining of most canned foods (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
A chemical found in plastic might be present in people’s bodies more than previously thought. A number of previous studies suggest that even at very low levels bisphenol-A, or BPA, could be linked to health problems. They range from prostate and breast cancer to early puberty in kids. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A chemical found in plastic might be present in people’s bodies more than previously thought. A number of previous studies suggest that even at very low levels bisphenol-A, or BPA, could be linked to health problems. They range from prostate and breast cancer to early puberty in kids. Rebecca Williams reports:
Scientists thought our main exposure to BPA was through food because of plastic linings in cans and other containers. They also thought BPA didn’t stay in our bodies very long.
But in this new study, researchers found that people who fasted for 24 hours still had levels of BPA close to the same as people who’d just eaten.
So they think we might be exposed to BPA some other way. Maybe water – some plastic water pipes contain BPA. Or, BPA is staying in our bodies for longer than people thought. Or both.
Dr. Rick Stahlhut is the lead author of the study in Environmental Health Perspectives. He says there are some ways to reduce your exposure from food.
“You’d probably have to get food that was mostly fresh and cook it yourself and try not to use polycarbonate plastic to store food.”
And he says use containers and bottles that don’t contain BPA.
The Government Accountability Office identified food safety as one of the major issues for the new administration to address
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
As President Obama starts looking at
priorities, he or his staff will
have to take a look at the “Urgent
Issues” identified by the Government
Accountability Office. There’s a list
of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the
oversight of financial institutions and
markets. Food safety is also on that list.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the
GAO. She says food safety issues such
as the current recall of peanut butter
contaminated by salmonella are becoming
a real concern:
Transcript
As President Obama starts looking at
priorities, he or his staff will
have to take a look at the “Urgent
Issues” identified by the Government
Accountability Office. There’s a list
of 13 Urgent Issues, ranging from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the
oversight of financial institutions and
markets. Food safety is also on that list.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
spoke with Lisa Shames. She’s with the
GAO. She says food safety issues such
as the current recall of peanut butter
contaminated by salmonella are becoming
a real concern:
Lisa Shames: I think we’re all becoming more aware of how globalized our food
supply is. More and more is being imported. And, we’re also keenly aware of
the publicity that the recent outbreaks have had. Two and a half years ago, it
started with spinach, and, most recently with peanut butter. And, in between,
we’ve become aware of ingredients that may have become part of the food
supply, such as the melamine in pet food, and, most recently, in milk products.
And, we’re also facing the risk that federal dollars are not being spent as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
Lester Graham: Well, I guess I understand that, but I’m more concerned about
whether I can buy food at the supermarket or at other places and be sure that it’s
safe.
Shames: Well, let me say at the outset that, overall, our food supply is generally
safe. But there are challenges, because the demographics are such that we’re
going to be more susceptible to food-borne outbreaks. The population is getting
older, pregnant women are more vulnerable to these food-borne outbreaks, as
well as those who have immune deficiencies.
Graham: Now, a GAO report that I read indicated there are a lot of government
agencies duplicating efforts, and, in some cases, there are gaps in food
inspection. How did we end up with such a hodge-podge of efforts on something
as important as food safety?
Shames: The food safety structure has evolved piece-meal. And, what has
happened is that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for meat, and
poultry, and processed eggs, and the Food and Drug Administration is
responsible for seafood and fresh produce. Even that now has become a little
more fragmented, in that the oversight of catfish is now the responsibility of the
Agriculture Department. So, it’s a system that has many players involved, and
there really is no formal mechanism for them to work in a more coordinated and
efficient manner.
Graham: We also get some conflicting messages from agencies. Recently, the
Food and Drug Administration proposed that women who are pregnant or could
become pregnant eat more fish, while the Environmental Protection Agency
advises that those same women eat less fish because of contaminates such as
mercury. Why is there so much confusion?
Shames: Well, part of it is that there’s no convening mechanism for these
agencies to talk with each other. For example, a number of years ago, there was
a food safety council that was in place. We’ve also found that a government-
wide plan could also ensure that the goals of these agencies are complementary,
as well as the data that they collect, and the information they disseminate is
consistent and minimizes any confusion on the public’s part.
Graham: Are we talking about a sort of food czar?
Shames: Well, that is a possibility. We feel that agencies at least have to sit
around the table. And that really is one of our key recommendations to the
Congress and to the new administration. We’ve also asked for re-examination of
the food laws to make sure that they are consistent and uniform, as well as risk-
based. And that way we can target the scarce federal dollars where they’re
needed the most.
Even in hospitals, the same clean can be achieved without the harsh and dangerous chemicals (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)
You might have noticed some
new choices for environmentally-friendly
cleaners on supermarket shelves. Most
people pass them over. They worry
natural cleaners won’t do the job as
well as the regular stuff. But, the
places that need to be the cleanest,
the most sterilized, are finding that
green cleaners are more effective.
Julie Grant reports that hospitals
have started replacing the old chemical
cleaners with natural products:
Transcript
You might have noticed some
new choices for environmentally-friendly
cleaners on supermarket shelves. Most
people pass them over. They worry
natural cleaners won’t do the job as
well as the regular stuff. But, the
places that need to be the cleanest,
the most sterilized, are finding that
green cleaners are more effective.
Julie Grant reports that hospitals
have started replacing the old chemical
cleaners with natural products:
It used to stink whenever the cleaning guys at the Cleveland
Clinic needed to strip the floors. The patients, doctors and
nurses would complain about the chemical vapors. So, they
started clearing areas of the hospital on floor cleaning days.
(sound of cleaning machine)
Today Dennis Casey says they drive around on a new
scrubbing machine.
“That’s an automatic stripper, it’s called an orbital scrubber.
And it strips the floors without the use of chemicals – only
water.”
The new-fangled machine looks kind of like a riding mower.
They run over the hospital floors spraying cold water and the
machine scrubs. Casey says it works just as well as the old
chemicals – but it doesn’t smell and takes a lot less time.
That’s music to Christina Ayers’s ears. She’s environmental
coordinator at the Cleveland Clinic. Ayers says the most
important part of picking cleaners and tools – is to make sure
they’re going to work.
Of course, water alone isn’t enough for every job. Hospitals
need disinfectants. Ayers says the Environmental Protection
Agency helps with that.
“EPA actually certifies disinfectants, and all products that are
used as a disinfectant have to go through the same rigorous
testing to ensure their efficacy. But what we’re buying when
we’re buying the products is the efficacy of the product, not
all the additional chemicals and perfumes and other
elements that are not necessary for the product to function
well.”
Ayers says lots of people are used to that ‘hospital smell.’
But that’s often just a cocktail of cleaning chemicals – and
doesn’t create the healthiest environment for patients and
staff.
They still use bleach at the Clinic – it’s a great disinfectant –
but only in specific places – door handles and other high
traffic areas. Ayers says other places, like windows and
bathrooms, can get just as clean without other harsh
chemicals.
At first, it was tough for some folks on the cleaning staff to
accept the new, fragrance free products. Those strong
smells signaled a clean room. Ayers says some would use
the natural cleaners – but then spray chemical air fresheners
just to make sure the rooms smelled clean.
“That’s a bridge we have to cross. We have to help people
understand that clean smells of nothing. And that when
you’re smelling all of those smells that are associated with
clean, that chemical smell, the smell of bleach, those
perfumes, all those volatile organic compounds that come
out of the cleaning products – you don’t want to be inhaling
all of that product. You really want it to be working, you want
to purchase the efficacy of the product and not all of that
extra stuff that goes into our air.”
Ayers says people with asthma and other breathing
problems understand that right away. And, often, others just
need a little explanation.
“And once you explain that to people – that you’re using a
product that’s safer for the indoor air quality of our hospital –
It’s an easy step, people understand it. And they quickly
grow accustomed to the new smell of clean, which is a much
more mild and fresh and less chemical smell than what you
might be familiar with – even in your own home.”
In fact, I talked with one woman on the cleaning staff who
says, since the hospital switched to more natural products,
she’s seen how well they work and has started using green
cleaners at home.
Condors are harmed by eating meat contaminated with lead from hunters' bullets (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Hunters have been using lead
bullets for decades to kill game with
little, if any, side effects. But new
research finds that hunters may need
to use more caution when choosing their
bullets. Reporter Sadie Babits has this
story on a hidden danger that’s just
coming to light:
Transcript
Hunters have been using lead
bullets for decades to kill game with
little, if any, side effects. But new
research finds that hunters may need
to use more caution when choosing their
bullets. Reporter Sadie Babits has this
story on a hidden danger that’s just
coming to light:
Tony Hanson has been hunting wild game all of his life. And over the years, he’s
grown pretty attached to what he considers the most cost effective, most efficient
bullet around – a lead bullet.
“It matters a lot to a hunter. You are counting on the range of that bullet. You know
what the bullet can do and you know what the gun will do. You’re out there to take
an animals life, and that’s not something we take lightly.”
The typical bullet used by most hunters is made up of about 65% lead. The bullet is
capped off with a copper jacket. These bullets are designed to handle high speeds and
to kill an animal quickly without breaking apart and sending tiny lead fragments
throughout the meat. Hanson works with the country’s largest conservation group –
Michigan United Conservation Clubs. He says he’s not concerned about possible
lead poisoning.
“Generally speaking, if you make the shot you are supposed to make you’re not
getting any edible meat. It’s not something that really weighs into my thought too
much. ”
Like Hansen, most hunters don’t give lead bullets a second thought. So why worry?
Well, early last spring, food pantries across North Dakota and Minnesota were
advised not to give out donated ground venison. That’s after lab tests revealed tiny
lead fragments in some of the meat.
It generated enough interest that North Dakota launched a study involving some 700
people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked with North
Dakota’s Health Department. They found that people who ate a lot of wild game
tended to have higher lead levels in their blood than those who ate very little or no
wild game.
The results validated similar research involving California Condors. The Condors
almost went extinct in large part because of lead poisoning. You see, the birds would
feed on gut piles and carcasses left by hunters, and, if those hunters used lead bullets,
the condors would get sick.
That old problem still exists. Lead poisoning remains the number one obstacle
standing in the way of restoring the California Condors.
(sound of birds outdoors)
Rick Watson is the vice president of the Peregrine Fund in Boise, Idaho. He says
they’ve tracked the birds through satellites to see what they feed on. They’ve also
shot deer in the same way a hunter would, using typical lead bullets. The animals
were then x-rayed.
“And we were astounded by the results. Typically out of the 30 or so deer all of them
had fragmented lead bullets in them. And we were also amazed about the actual
extent the lead fragments are sprayed throughout the meat.”
Watson says about 5% of a bullet does break apart and some of it gets into the meat.
He’s now working on another study to see the impact of lead bullets on people.
That’s involved shooting more deer, sending the meat to random processors, and
then running that meat through an x-ray machine. The findings, he says support
what North Dakota discovered late last fall.
“And again what we found that 30% of the packages of meat that came back had at
least one fragment of lead in them.”
Not enough to make a person sick, but enough to raise a red flag. Watson says the
solution is simple. Hunters need to use non-toxic lead bullets. But most hunters
aren’t convinced. So-called green bullets are about twice the cost of lead bullets and
hunters don’t believe they are as efficient.
Hunters say they want independent research done before anybody starts making the
switch to non toxic bullets.
A lead detector finds over 5000 parts per million of lead in this toy. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Kids consignment shops have been worried about a new law limiting lead and other chemicals in children’s products.
Julie Grant reports store owners are glad to finally have some answers from the federal government:
Transcript
Kids consignment shops have been worried about a new law limiting lead and other chemicals in children’s products.
Julie Grant reports store owners are glad to finally have some answers from the federal government:
Amanda Cingle in is manager at Once Upon a Child. It’s part of a franchise of 300 stores that sell used items for kids.
She says the owner was concerned the new law would mean they’d have to throw out their existing inventory – or spend many thousands of dollars having it all tested for chemicals.
But now the government’s Consumer Products Safety Commission says the law will only applies to new products, not those being re-sold.
“We’re so relieved. We don’t have to worry anymore. The owner’s worry was that she was going to have to close her doors and never reopen.”
Cingle says the store has an environmental mission – to reuse and recycle products – so she’s glad they don’t have to throw everything away.
But she’s also pleased that new products will be made with less harmful ingredients.
A lead detector finds over 5000 parts per million of lead in this toy. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Millions of toys were recalled
last year because of lead contamination.
There were about half as many recalls this
year, but lead in toys is still a problem.
Rebecca Williams reports there’s a new law
that will limit the amount of lead in any
toy or children’s product, but it won’t go
into effect until after the holidays:
Transcript
Millions of toys were recalled
last year because of lead contamination.
There were about half as many recalls this
year, but lead in toys is still a problem.
Rebecca Williams reports there’s a new law
that will limit the amount of lead in any
toy or children’s product, but it won’t go
into effect until after the holidays:
There is already a federal limit on how much lead can be in the paint on
kids’ toys. But lead can also be in places you might not expect – like plastic
parts of toys.
The new law puts a limit on lead in any part of a toy. But the new law won’t
take effect until February 10th. So that means toys that you can buy now
can legally have very high levels of lead embedded in them.
Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center. It’s an environmental group
that’s been testing toys for lead.
(beep)
He has an analyzer that tells you what elements are in a toy – in this case, a
plastic building block.
“So when I look at the results here, this orange block has over 3,000 parts
per million of lead. Now remember this will be illegal to be on the shelves
in February. It’s legal now because the lead’s not in the paint, it’s embedded
in the plastic.”
Babies and little kids’ brains and bodies are still developing. Since they tend
to put toys in their mouths, they’re really vulnerable to damage from lead.
“There is no safe level of lead in blood. Pediatricians have said a little bit of
lead causes a little bit of brain damage and a lot of lead causes a lot of brain
damage. We think toys shouldn’t be involved in causing any amount of
brain damage.”
Mike Shriberg says there is no way to know just by looking which toys have
lead and which ones don’t. But he says children’s jewelry is by far the
worst. They found it’s five times more likely to have lead than other toys.
He says simpler toys, such as unpainted wooden toys, tend to be safer.
“Just to be clear there is no surefire rule.”
Shriberg’s group has tested 1,500 toys this year and has put the results up on
their website: healthy-toys dot org.
The group found about one in every five toys still has lead.
Mattel and Hasbro say they’re carefully testing their toys this year. And
retailers such as Toys R Us and Wal-Mart are also testing toys.
The National Retail Federation did not return calls for comment.
The National Association of Manufacturers did not want to comment for this
story. But in a recent Wall Street Journal article – a spokesperson for the
trade group said billions of dollars in inventory could be lost when the new
lead law goes into effect.
Three billion toys are sold in the US each year. So who’s going to make
sure all those toys comply with the new law? A small government agency.
Julie Vallese is with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
“CPSC always has investigators in the field looking for products in violation
of safety standards. Now it is a big market and we do have limited
resources. But we have a systematic way of going about looking for
violations and we will be doing that come February 10th.”
Last year, the New York Times reported that just one man, named Bob, was
responsible for testing toys for safety.
Agency officials say that’s not true – they say many people test toys. We
asked how many. We asked repeatedly. We wanted to know the exact
number of people who test toys for lead. But they refused to tell us.
Congress has promised more money for more toy testers. But that has not
happened yet.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission says besides – industry has the
biggest responsibility here.
The agency says when the new toy law goes into effect in February, it’ll be
up to the manufacturers, the retailers and the importers to make sure the toys
they’re selling are not in violation of the new lead law.
Toy makers use phthalates to make hard plastic pliable (Source: Toniht at Wikimedia Commons)
By early next year, a new law
should make plastic toys less toxic.
But consumer advocates say the Bush
administration is bending the new law
to suit the toy industry over children’s
safety. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
By early next year, a new law
should make plastic toys less toxic.
But consumer advocates say the Bush
administration is bending the new law
to suit the toy industry over children’s
safety. Julie Grant reports:
Chemicals known as phthalates are used to make rubber
duckies, teethers, and lots of plastic toys softer and more
bendable.
But they can also cause genital deformities, lower sperm
counts, and early puberty.
Liz Hitchcock is with the US Public Interest Research Group,
which cheered when Congress banned many phthalates in
toys. The law goes into effect in Februrary.
But now Hitchcock says the government’s Consumer
Products Safety Commission is telling toy makers they can
continue to sell toys with phthalates – as long as they don’t
manufacture any more after the law takes effect.
“What they’re saying is that if an industry or a store has
existing inventory of these toxic toys as of February 10, they
can keep selling until they exhaust their supply.”
Congress has scheduled a hearing this week to clarify the
law.
In China, infant formulas contaminated with melamine killed four babies and made
thousands sick. (Photo courtesy of the CDC)
Earlier this year, when Chinese
infant formulas were found to be contaminated,
the US Food and Drug Administration banned
imports. The FDA said no amount of
industrial chemicals should be allowed in
infant formula. Now that the FDA has
found the same chemicals in US-made infant
formulas, the government says a little is
safe. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Earlier this year, when Chinese
infant formulas were found to be contaminated,
the US Food and Drug Administration banned
imports. The FDA said no amount of
industrial chemicals should be allowed in
infant formula. Now that the FDA has
found the same chemicals in US-made infant
formulas, the government says a little is
safe. Lester Graham reports:
In China, infant formulas contaminated with melamine killed four babies and made
thousands sick. The FDA said no amount was acceptable.
Then the FDA started secretly testing infant formulas made in the U.S. It found
melamine or a related chemical, cyanuric acid, in Nestle’s Good Start formula and
Mead Johnson’s Enfamil. ‘
Suddenly, the FDA decided a trace amount, one part per million is safe.
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. She says the FDA
should stop sales of those formulas.
“We have directly asked them to make sure these formulas are recalled as well as to
make sure that people across the country are aware of the problem.”
The FDA stresses levels of the chemicals in the U.S. infant formulas are more than
10,000 times lower than the levels reported in the Chinese formulas.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
BPA is found in things such as plastic water bottles, canned goods, and baby bottles
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Transcript
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, is just about everywhere – one of most commonly manufactured
chemicals in the world. It’s main use is to make plastics hard and shatterproof.
It’s found in consumer products such as plastic baby bottles, water bottles, C-D cases,
eyeglasses and the lining of tin cans.
Rick Smith is with the group, Environmental Defense. Smith says particularly at risk are
infants.
“So there’s very good evidence that kids that are exposed to it earlier on in life are
more prone to breast cancer, prostate cancer later on in life.”
Research has also linked BPA to heart disease, diabetes, and liver problems. Smith says
BPA is in virtually every tin can in people’s cupboards, and evidence has shown that it
can leach into the food or beverage, even at room temperature.
Health Canada says the levels of BPA most adults are exposed to are not harmful.
But Smith and other environmentalists are calling for a complete ban in consumer
products.
There’s a chance that potentially-contaminated food is still sitting on store shelves, and maybe in your pantry (Source: Gene.Arboit at Wikimedia Commons)
